Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

[Sculptor]

Look, you people have to make up your minds. First you provide quotes insisting that we are mostly ignorant, and as soon as someone agrees with that, you turn around and insist you are not ignorant at all and are certain of what you quoted.

I just don't understand how one can be certain of something when that something is that they or ignorant. If that's a limitation on my part, I'm glad of it.

The accurate part of your text is highlighten in blue

That's right. It is not possible to, "understand," nonsense.

Playing the fool to cover your ignorance as usual

[Eodnhoj7]

They both made observations which are true regardless of any model of knowledge.

Well... that entirely depends on your model/theory/paradigm of truth.

Parmenides pointed out that something exists, which cannot be stated without it being true.
Descartes pointed out that thinking exists, which cannot be thought without it being true.

Yea. Bullshit. "Something" is a noun. Nouns express ontology.
Exists is an adjective about the noun. Adjectives express qualitative claims about ontology/nouns.

The only way you get to utter the sentence "thinking/something exists" is by getting thoroughly confused about ontology and epistemology before you even start.

Asserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

1. "Something" is ontological and ontology is a "something"...it is circular. As circular it is subject to a form. Philosophy and Science both study forms thus equate.

2. "Exists" is a verb, it is the active state of "something" thus is part of "something". "Something exists" is the same thing as saying "something" given "Something exists" observes the active state of something. A state is a part of something thus is an extension of that which it is a part. Identity is expression, expression is truth, thus identity is truth.

3. "Asserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth..." this is an assertion about existence and a truth thus deflationary theories of truth are frivolous when self-referential (as they are in this case). Self referentiality is the core of truth given the totality of being, as a whole, must be self referential given only being exists.

[Skepdick]

1. "Something" is ontological and ontology is a "something"...it is circular. As circular it is subject to a form. Philosophy and Science both study forms thus equate.

Equations imply symmetry.

This leaves out the entire conceptual paradigm of the asymmetrical.

A symmetrical theory can never account for information-flow.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. "Something" is ontological and ontology is a "something"...it is circular. As circular it is subject to a form. Philosophy and Science both study forms thus equate.

Equations imply symmetry.

This leaves out the entire conceptual paradigm of the asymmetrical.

A symmetrical theory can never account for information-flow.

Assymetry necessitates a dyad at minimum as the dyad allows for distinction through contrast; this nature of being "distinct" is shared across both phenomena thus symmetry occurs.

[Skepdick]

Assymetry necessitates a dyad at minimum as the dyad allows for distinction through contrast; this nature of being "distinct" is shared across both phenomena thus symmetry occurs.

Wordsalad.

Distinction through uniqueness is sufficient.

You are not me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Assymetry necessitates a dyad at minimum as the dyad allows for distinction through contrast; this nature of being "distinct" is shared across both phenomena thus symmetry occurs.

Wordsalad.

Distinction through uniqueness is sufficient.

You are not me.

Then learn to read. If you are different then me, but we are both human, then in regards to being human two distinct phenomenon, me/you, share similarities and they equate through (but not without) these similarities.

Similarities occur thus not all is asymmetric.

[Skepdick]

Then learn to read.

I read just fine. Learn to write.

If you are different then me, but we are both human, then in regards to being human two distinct phenomenon, me/you, share similarities and they equate through (but not without) these similarities.

Similarities occur thus not all is asymmetric.

That is how abstraction works, genius.

“Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.” ― Robert C. Martin

When you eliminate/ignore our differences and you amplify our similarities then we are both human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

I am different to you AND we are both human. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Belinda]

Then learn to read.

I read just fine. Learn to write.

If you are different then me, but we are both human, then in regards to being human two distinct phenomenon, me/you, share similarities and they equate through (but not without) these similarities.

Similarities occur thus not all is asymmetric.

That is how abstraction works, genius.

“Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.” ― Robert C. Martin

When you eliminate/ignore our differences and you amplify our similarities then we are both human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

I am different to you AND we are both human. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Eodnhoj7 is right about asymmetry. An entity A is not the same in all respects as entity B. If they were symmetrical in all respects they would be the same entity.It follows that if A is the same as A's environment then A and his environment would be the same.
"You are not me" said Skepdick to Eodnhoj7. This is because nothing exists without its environment and Eodnhoj7 is part of Skepdick's environment and vice versa.

[Skepdick]

Eodnhoj7 is right about asymmetry. An entity A is not the same in all respects as entity B. If they were symmetrical in all respects they would be the same entity.

That's fundamentally impossible.

The process by which we detemine sameness (the action of comparison) necessitates two objects before comparison even starts.
That is what it means for an operation/operator to be binary - it compares TWO things.

It would require some special level of confusion to begin comparing TWO things only to discover it was ONE thing all along.
It would be equivalent to putting the same apple on both sides of the scale. At the same time. And not realise it.
And if there's only one thing then no confusion about "sameness" or "difference" could occur.

In the physical world one apple can't be in two places at the same time, but in the abstract setting it's trivial.

X here and X here and X here. Same X. So Mathematicians tell you X = X. But I tell you X != X.

NOT! (X = X). Because there are two of them they can't possibly be the same.

[RCSaunders]

Eodnhoj7 is right about asymmetry. An entity A is not the same in all respects as entity B. If they were symmetrical in all respects they would be the same entity.

That's fundamentally impossible.

Isn't that exactly what Belinda is saying? It'd be fundamentally impossible for two things to be identical in every way, including their context. If there are two things, there must be something about them that is different--either inherent attributes or the context in which they exists. Two things cannot have all the same attributes, in the same way at the same time in the same place and be two different things because there could be no difference.

[Skepdick]

Isn't that exactly what Belinda is saying? It'd be fundamentally impossible for two things to be identical in every way, including their context. If there are two things, there must be something about them that is different--either inherent attributes or the context in which they exists. Two things cannot have all the same attributes, in the same way at the same time in the same place and be two different things because there could be no difference.

Isn't that what I am saying?

Equations imply symmetry.

This leaves out the entire conceptual paradigm of the asymmetrical.

A symmetrical theory can never account for information-flow.

If equations imply symmetry then X=X can never account for the fact that X != X.

X = X vs NOT (X = X)

[Belinda]

Eodnhoj7 is right about asymmetry. An entity A is not the same in all respects as entity B. If they were symmetrical in all respects they would be the same entity.

That's fundamentally impossible.

The process by which we detemine sameness (the action of comparison) necessitates two objects before comparison even starts.
That is what it means for an operation/operator to be binary - it compares TWO things.

It would require some special level of confusion to begin comparing TWO things only to discover it was ONE thing all along.
It would be equivalent to putting the same apple on both sides of the scale. At the same time. And not realise it.
And if there's only one thing then no confusion about "sameness" or "difference" could occur.

In the physical world one apple can't be in two places at the same time, but in the abstract setting it's trivial.

X here and X here and X here. Same X. So Mathematicians tell you X = X. But I tell you X != X.

NOT! (X = X). Because there are two of them they can't possibly be the same.

Sure, relative sameness and relative difference are what is the case, at least insofar as our measurements of quality and quantity allow.

I gathered from the point Eodinhoj7 made is that there can be no subject of consciousness without an object of consciousness.There can be no knowledge of dog without what is knowledge of not-dog. There can be no knowledge of Higgs boson without knowledge of what is not Higgs boson. This is how our minds work; we need asymmetry.

[Skepdick]

Sure, relative sameness and relative difference are what is the case, at least insofar as our measurements of quality and quantity allow.

Yes, but relativity itself has an implicit assumption/property too.

I am specifically talking about arity. The number of arguments to an operation.

So take any particular measurement operator. Same, or different, or larger than. They are all bin-ary. They take two parameters.

It is abstractly possible, but physically non-sensical to perform any relative (binary) operation on a single entity.

I gathered from the point Eodinhoj7 made is that there can be no subject of consciousness without an object of consciousness.

That is true in general, but it fails in particular. When the object of consciousness is consciousness itself.

Observer observing itself.

There can be no knowledge of dog without what is knowledge of not-dog. There can be no knowledge of Higgs boson without knowledge of what is not Higgs boson. This is how our minds work; we need asymmetry.

Yes. Assymmetry is information-flow. But more than that... I am pointing out the notion of a closed vs open system in systems theory.

A closed system is one that doesn't interact with the evironment. If X and not-X are in such a relationship with respect to each other such that they form a perfectly symmetrical system then they form a closed system. A closed sysem would not interact with an external observer. So a perfectly symmetrical system is unobservable.

[Belinda]

Sure, relative sameness and relative difference are what is the case, at least insofar as our measurements of quality and quantity allow.

Yes, but relativity itself has an implicit assumption/property too.

I am specifically talking about arity. The number of arguments to an operation.

So take any particular measurement operator. Same, or different, or larger than. They are all bin-ary. They take two parameters.

It is abstractly possible, but physically non-sensical to perform any relative (binary) operation on a single entity.

I gathered from the point Eodinhoj7 made is that there can be no subject of consciousness without an object of consciousness.

That is true in general, but it fails in particular. When the object of consciousness is consciousness itself.

Observer observing itself.

There can be no knowledge of dog without what is knowledge of not-dog. There can be no knowledge of Higgs boson without knowledge of what is not Higgs boson. This is how our minds work; we need asymmetry.

Yes. Assymmetry is information-flow. But more than that... I am pointing out the notion of a closed vs open system in systems theory.

A closed system is one that doesn't interact with the evironment. If X and not-X are in such a relationship with respect to each other such that they form a perfectly symmetrical system then they form a closed system. A closed sysem would not interact with an external observer. So a perfectly symmetrical system is unobservable.

Am I right in thinking the only closed systems known to man are logic, and mathematics?

Regarding subject and object of consciousness, I prefer 'experience' to 'consciousness'. 'Experience 'is a better word for the job because there is an actual demarcation between things such as engines and stones that are nothing but histories of themselves, and things that intend to experience such as living trees, living spiders and living men. Please refer to Sartre "being for-itself" and "being in-itself". Experiences include thinking about theories of consciousness as intentions i.e. looking towards what does not yet exist, i.e. creativity and creating oneself.

[Skepdick]

Am I right in thinking the only closed systems known to man are logic, and mathematics?

I would argue strongly against either of them being closed systems. If they were - they wouldn't give us any answers.

Imagine a calculator with no screen. Input and no output. That's just a black hole.

Regarding subject and object of consciousness, I prefer 'experience' to 'consciousness'. 'Experience 'is a better word for the job because there is an actual demarcation between things such as engines and stones that are nothing but histories of themselves, and things that intend to experience such as living trees, living spiders and living men. Please refer to Sartre "being for-itself" and "being in-itself". Experiences include thinking about theories of consciousness as intentions i.e. looking towards what does not yet exist, i.e. creativity and creating oneself.

Yeah. I am by no means a stickler for nomenclature.

We can use the language of experience just the same - the subject (experiencer) and the object (being experienced).

The distinction still vanishes when the experiencer experiences themselves.